Despite having a valid reason to terminate a THC-positive employee, WorkPac has been ordered to pay nearly $40,000 in compensation after the dismissal was found procedurally unfair, with confusion over competing policies a key factor.

The case demonstrates the importance of mine operators and contractors having aligned policies, or at least a hierarchy over whose policy applies, with WorkPac’s strict zero-tolerance approach clashing with the more lenient policy of its client.

BACKGROUND

The dump truck operator was assigned by his employer WorkPac to a Queensland coal mine operated by Batchfire and was subject to both companies’ fitness-for-work policies.

WorkPac enforces a zero-tolerance approach to drugs and alcohol, with mandatory compliance and random testing, while Batchfire’s policy includes voluntary self-testing with mine-supplied kits and procedures for self-exclusion if above the prescribed limit.

The night before his 26 January 2025 shift, the employee smoked half a joint of prescription cannabis. Before attending work he used a mine-issued self-test kit, returned a negative result and believed he was fit for duty.

At about 8:00 am, the employee was called on the two-way radio by his Field Supervisor and instructed to stop operating the truck and meet at the crib hut, which he did.

He was told he would undergo a drug and alcohol test due to “a cause of suspicion” which, according to the employee, related to his flatmate having returned a non-negative THC result.

The first test also produced a non-negative result. Under the mine’s policy and procedure, a non-negative result may be followed by an immediate retest. If the second result is negative, the employee may return to work.

The employee said his second result was negative, but the Supervisor, citing uncertainty, contacted the SSE, who instructed that the employee be sent home as they “could not risk” having him on site. He was told to return the next day.

Before reporting to work on 27 January 2025, the employee self-tested negative at home and again tested negative on arrival, with paperwork signed accordingly, but was later told the result had changed to “non-negative” outside the valid reading window and without his consent to the alteration.

A further test from an already-opened kit also returned non-negative, his initial request for another test was refused, and he ultimately provided only a B-sample before being sent home.

Batchfire informed WorkPac of two non-negative results, with lab tests on 30 January 2025 confirming positive THC levels on both days, leading the Site Manager to conclude the results may breach WorkPac policies.

On 31 January 2025, WorkPac issued a Notice to Show Cause over a confirmed positive THC test and alleged policy breaches, to which the employee responded on 2 February disputing results, citing procedural flaws, and raising personal and medical factors.

After reviewing the evidence, the Site Manager found the employee’s consecutive positive THC results breached policy and constituted serious misconduct, issuing a termination letter on 4 February 2025 ending his employment immediately.

FWC FINDS VALID REASON, BUT PROCEDURAL ERRORS

Filing an application in the Fair Work Commission, the employee argued his dismissal was unfair due to negative self-tests before both shifts, serious procedural flaws in the onsite testing, confusion over which policy applied, and his unblemished work record and personal circumstances.

Commissioner Simoson found a valid reason for dismissal because the employee twice presented for work in a safety-critical role with THC detected in his system, confirmed by independent laboratory testing.

This was deemed a breach of WorkPac’s Fitness for Work Policy, Code of Conduct, and Employment Contract, which required him to be free from the influence of drugs while at work.

However, Cmr Simpson also agreed there were significant procedural flaws in the testing process, including breaches of chain of custody, use of an already-opened test kit, and alteration of test records without the employee’s knowledge.

It also accepted that confusion over whether WorkPac’s or Batchfire’s policy applied, combined with the employee’s proactive negative self-testing and unblemished work history, contributed to the dismissal being harsh.

The employee was awarded $37,222.50 in compensation – an amount discounted by 50% from the calculated six months lost pay to reflect the breach of policy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS

This decision highlights several important lessons for managing discipline and dismissal procedures.

Firstly, on procedural fairness, the FWC made it clear that flaws in the testing process – such as breaches in the chain of custody, use of opened testing kits, altering test records without consent, and conducting tests outside the manufacturer’s validity window – undermined the fairness of the termination.

Employers must ensure strict compliance with testing procedures and maintain clear, documented chains of custody to protect both the integrity of results and the defensibility of decisions.

Second, clarity around which policies apply is critical, especially in labour-hire or multi-employer worksites.

In this case, confusion between the site operator’s policy and the employer’s own policy contributed to the finding of harshness. Employers should clearly communicate to workers which policy prevails and ensure consistency in its application.

Finally, with respect to AREEA’s advocacy for a more workable industrial relations system, the case reinforces longstanding concerns with how dismissals are treated under the “Fair Work system”.

In principle any employer (in this case WorkPac) should not face a significant fine for enforcing a clear zero-tolerance approach to drugs and alcohol in a safety-critical environment like mining.

The FWC’s initial finding of a breach of policy leading to a valid reason for dismissal, should have far greater weighting in matters such as these.

Unfair dismissal laws remain a key focus area of AREEA’s policy work and advocacy campaigns.

Maxwell Parks v WorkPac (8 August 2025).

If you have any questions or concerns around your policies, please get in touch: [email protected]